October 4, 2007

The Empire Strikes Back

Iran has evidently been emboldened by our lack of significant response to its peddling explosively formed penetrators (EFPs) to Iraqi insurgents; so now, per the Telegraph (and a great, big, sloppy-wet hat tip to John at Power Line), Iran has begun doing the same for the Taliban:

Iran is supplying the Taliban in Afghanistan with the same bomb-making equipment it provides to insurgents in Iraq, according to British military intelligence officers.

US Army General Dan McNeill, the commander of Nato forces in Afghanistan, said that the discovery of more than 50 roadside bombs and timers in lorries crossing the border from Iran last month proves that Iran's Quds Revolutionary Guards are actively supporting the Taliban.

The allegation will add to fears that the escalating war of words between Iran and the West could end in armed conflict between the two.

I don't mean to be persnickety, but if Iran is FedExing munitions to its catspaws and stalking horses left and right -- by which I mean in Iraq and Afghanistan, respectively -- then aren't we already in armed conflict?

It's time for President Bush to fish or get off the pot. I have a suggestion...

Let him call an emergency meeting of the United Nations Security Council. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and National Intelligence Director Michael McConnell then give a joint presentation to the Big 5, meticulously going over every piece of evidence proving that Iran has repeatedly conspired to attack United States soldiers and Marines, our Coalition allies, and the Army, police, and civilians in the Iraq (as that Miss Teen Whatever calls it).

They really take their time, making sure no stone is left unthrown. Then they start in on the evidence that Iran is building a nuclear bomb, or trying, at least. They use the evidence compiled by the IAEA and its Director-General Mohamed ElBaredei, along with intelligence from France, Israel, Great Britain, Germany, and the United States. Again, don't rush through it: The two secretaries should do a thorough job.

Finally, the last third of the presentation would be a legal case against Iran for violation of the prohibition, under "international law" (for those who believe in such chimeras), against incitement to genocide. When that is done, they take deep breaths and make the case that Iran is an admitted sponsor of groups already adjudged terrorist organizations... including Hezbollah, Hamas, al-Qaeda, and the Taliban.

At the end, when the presentation is finished, Secretary Gates should conclude with these words:

Thank you, gentlemen, for your time and consideration of these grave events. We have only one more important point to make.

As this meeting began, a large but unspecified number of Coalition attack jets took off from bases in Iraq and Afghanistan. These forces were not just American but included British and French airplanes.

As we sat here, chatting so amiably, those planes have already carried out airstrikes destroying all known Iranian nuclear research sites -- and we know a lot more than we have ever let on -- as well as all Qods Force units we have identified, all known or suspected stockpiles of or factories for producing EFPs, major Hezbollah training camps and barracks, and all other units known or suspected to be involved in the criminal supply of munitions to terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan for use against Coalition troops.

In addition, I am reliably informed -- though of course, we have no operational control over this event -- that the Israelis have by now launched similar raids against Hezbollah strongholds in Syria and Lebanon... in Damascus, along the Beqaa Valley in Lebanon, and so forth. They have also destroyed targets in the Syrian military associated with the transhipment of rockets and missiles from Iran to terrorist organizations.

In fact, I believe that the Israelis, just to make sure, have also attacked any military unit emplaced in Syria within fifty miles of the Israeli border or the Lebanese border.

Or so they tell me; we have nothing to do with it -- except, perhaps, allowing them to use our satellites and AWACs for look-down fire-control radar, air-traffic control, friend-or-foe identification of nearby aircraft, EA-6B electronic countermeasure aircraft, in-flight refueling, and 3-D targeting information. Other than that, we are not involved.

We do not ask permission of this August body; we never surrendered our authority to retaliate to military attack... and neither did the rest of you. And in any event, the die is cast, the deed is done. This purpose of this presentation was not to gain your approval; it was to explain why we have done what we have done, and what Iran and Syria must refrain from doing in the future to avoid another, more severe lesson in poking sleeping giants.

We thank you for a very pleasant evening. Cocktails and caviar will be served in the lounge, along with a special screening of the Right Stuff. Good evening.

Ah, me. A fantasy, I know... but must it remain so?

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, October 4, 2007, at the time of 1:02 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/2482

The only thing missing is George W Bush participating in the baptism ceremony as godfather to Obama's son...

The above hissed in response by: MarkJM at October 4, 2007 5:24 AM

The following hissed in response by: qrstuv

The only part you left out is that we close the UN building the next day and covert it to luxury condos.

The above hissed in response by: qrstuv at October 4, 2007 5:57 AM

The following hissed in response by: john Ryan

Explosively formed penetrators can be assembled by anyone who has passed a high school shop class. Except for the explosive charge the rest of what is necessary can be found in any Home Depot.
The ONLY ones that I have ever seen on the internet in Iraq were obviously made localaly.
That being said some probably are coming over from Iran also. That border was always porous even under the iron hand of Saddam.

The above hissed in response by: john Ryan at October 4, 2007 7:05 AM

The following hissed in response by: LarryD

The "Dog and Pony show" needs to be made to the U.S. Congress and the American Public, not the UN.

it's really disgusting to hear you and the president whining about pipe bombs as being the biggest problem in iraq. the greatest army in the history of history and we're being beaten by high school level mischeif devices? get real, these devices are a smokescreen for the real problem - we have no plan, we have no objective, we're just riding around shooting at **** until the next president figures a way to get us the hell home. and advocating another war when you can't finish the first one is both ignorant and willfully dangerous. so, while we're arming EVERYONE in the region with sophisticated weaponry, don't ************ in rightious anger about the allegation - you'd think georgie could come up with some sort of proof about something - that Iran is "arming" our enemies. focus on how incompetent our strategy is, and don't say the word surge cause we both know its just another huge waste of men and money.

[Why is it that Leftists invariably feel the adolescent urge to write obscenities? Ibfamous, please read the guidelines for comments before commenting again. -- The Mgt.]

The above hissed in response by: ibfamous at October 4, 2007 10:51 AM

The following hissed in response by: MarkJM

ibfamouslymisinformed,
We are winning. If you have read ANY of Dafydd's prior posts concerning COIN strategy, you would know that. It would be easier to believe that you can't read, than believe anything you just posted.

The American people do not want a war with Iran, that is why we are not in an armed conflict with them right now. The Democrats would not let it happen. The UN would call us liars and the world would start pissing on American flags and lighting matches to them.

I am not happy about this scenario, but Bush is not King and so just telling him to fish or get off the pot is a lot like telling him to just go in and get Osama. Or just enforce the immigration laws and round up all the illegals or whatever.

"The American people do not want a war with Iran." So what?! Nobody in their right mind wants a war with anybody! And that's not even remotely the question. The question is what do the American people want to do when Iran, whose leaders are NOT in their right mind, atarts a war with US? We have two choices-- fight or die. I have a suspicion that those who "don't want a war" would, through inaction, condemn us all to the latter choice.

The above hissed in response by: snochasr at October 4, 2007 12:54 PM

The following hissed in response by: Davod

You do not get it!

It is not a matter of what the American people want. The Brits, Poles, and French did not want to go to war with Germany. Germany did it anyway.

Please, if you do not remember anything else EVER, get this through your thick skulls -Iran has been at war with the USA since 1979. They have conducted spoiling attacks on US people and interests throughout the world. They are doing it today.

Be careful with that "thick-skulled" stuff; Terrye is a longtime commenter here, too; and Lizardines don't attack each other.

As the old saw goes, you're welcome to attack her ideas, but not her.

Terrye:

Actually, the president, as Commander in Chief, has a wide lattitude to launch military action against any country or group he perceives as a danger to the security of the United States. What I described lies well and firmly within that authority per the War Powers Act.

He would have to inform Congress of what he had done 90 days after the attacks; but that is the extent of his responsibility, if all he does is order bombings. Legally, it's the same as when President Clinton ordered Iraq bombed and when President Reagan ordered Libya bombed.

Well, apparently just about everyone has forgotten the 1988 Tanker War with Iran. We were called to help the Gulf States and protect the world’s oil supply routes from Iraqi and Iranian attacks. Iraq backed off after attacking an American ship, but Iran continued to attack oil tankers. We did assist the Gulf States and kicked the Iranian’s butts, but we limited our attacks to the forces causing the problem. They got the message after a year of relatively low level naval engagements and American air attacks on their vessels. I don’t remember any repercussions.

Now the world has changed in the intervening 20 years in that Iran’s surrogates are much more powerful. However, I suspect that if we took out their EFP production facilities and the camp where the mock-up of the provincial headquarters in the Shiite holy city of Karbala, where five Americans were kidnapped and murdered in January, 2007, the Iranians might just get a little more jittery about other available targets. I suspect that we would receive no real consequences; but if we did, then release the hounds against those that declared war against us in 1979. A declaration we have chosen to ignore unlike the 1941 German declaration of war against us.

Well, apparently just about everyone has forgotten the 1988 Tanker War with Iran.

No I haven't. In fact, a very close college friend of mine was in the 1988 engagement (I wouldn't call it a war so much as an Iranian spasm). He was an officer on one of the Navy ships in the Gulf on "Red and Free Monday," when the Iranians had a Tourette's-like outburst and launched a few attacks at us... including firing a short-range missile at the ship my friend was on -- from about twice the missile's range.

By that point of the attack, they were getting a real-time feed from a couple of AWACs flying overhead; so they could watch the missile launch, fly towards them for a while, then land in the drink not even halfway to the ship.

The thrashing we gave the Iranians on that day shut them up for a good, long while, as I recall.

Perhaps a sharp quick attention getting slap up the side of hteir heads a la 1988 will help again?
When Britain tossed the Argies off of the Falklands, it showed the Argie people that their army was really just a bunch of bully boys. The military dictatorship ended fairly soon after.
If the Iranians saw that their RG's and other military organs were lacking, I think we would see similar results in Persia.

The above hissed in response by: hunter at October 4, 2007 9:58 PM

The following hissed in response by: ibfamous

“Why is it that Leftists invariably feel the adolescent urge to write obscenities?”

Why is it that conservatives would rather attack someone over verbiage rather than respond to their ideas?

“We are winning.”

MarkJM, what are we winning? Has the surge forced the opposition to go underground and wait until we’re forced to drop our numbers again due to mismanagement? Have we formed a working democracy in the Middle East? Have we captured the man who is responsible for the WTC attacks? What are we winning?

“…a very close college friend of mine was in the 1988 engagement”

Daffyd, I remember that too, but only because I was on FFG-37. now let’s see, why was I there… oh yeah, our ally Saddam Husain had lodged an Excorcet missile in the berthing compartment of the USS Stark (killing 26) and my ship was sent to replace them for the tanker escort. Ah, good times…

"Why is it that Leftists invariably feel the adolescent urge to write obscenities?"

Why is it that conservatives would rather attack someone over verbiage rather than respond to their ideas?

In the first place, I'm not a conservative.

Second, I "attack" people when they haul their gutter language into Big Lizards because I own and operate Big Lizards. It's my blog; I'm responsible for what gets posted here (posts and comments), so I make the rules. The rules are posted and quite explicit.

Even if you didn't read the rules first, you ought to have noticed that nobody else was sprinkling his comments with obscenities. Yet you found it necessary to do so, as does such a large portion of your fellow Lefties that I can only conclude it's some sort of initiation ritual on that side of the aisle.

MarkJM, what are we winning? Has the surge forced the opposition to go underground and wait until we’re forced to drop our numbers again due to mismanagement? Have we formed a working democracy in the Middle East? Have we captured the man who is responsible for the WTC attacks? What are we winning?

We are winning the war, Ibfamous. To win a counterinsurgency, you must:

First and foremost, protect the civilian population;

Expand the territory in which rule of law prevails and shrink the territory in which terrorist tyranny rules;

Stand up a local force to take over when you drop your numbers as per plan.

We are succeeding in each of these steps; ergo, we are winning the war.

Daffyd [sic], I remember that too, but only because I was on FFG-37. now let’s see, why was I there… oh yeah, our ally Saddam Husain had lodged an Excorcet [sic] missile in the berthing compartment of the USS Stark (killing 26) and my ship was sent to replace them for the tanker escort. Ah, good times…

What is your point? We often ally with a not-quite-as-bad guy, which Hussein was at that opint, in order to gang up on a much-worse guy; for example, who did we ally with in 1942 to fight the Nazis? But we did not, in fact, "ally" with Hussein.

But we never fought alongside Hussein; we never attacked Iran; we never gave Iraq targeting information, satellite imagery, air support, ECM, or anything remotely like that; nor -- contrary to hysterical claims by hysterical Democrats -- did we ever supply Saddam Hussein with WMD.

In 1988 -- as in 2003 -- Iran was a bigger threat to the United States than Iraq. During the Iran-Iraq war, President Reagan had a policy of keeping that war going in order to exhaust both sides. We determined that to do this, we had to help out Hussein, so he wouldn't lose too quickly.

We supplied him with some equipment; but his major supplier was then the Soviet Union, and was still Russia in 2003, when we invaded. (Russia led the opposition in the U.N. to invading its client state, Iraq.)

But even if we had allied with Iraq in 1988, why would that preclude us invading Iraq in 2003? We clearly and unambiguously allied with the Soviets in World War II... but that did not mean we weren't allowed to start fighting them in the Cold War starting in 1946.

This is all simple, basic history. You are welcome to comment here even without knowing it (so long as you follow the rules linked above); but unless you want to be rhetorically eaten alive, I recommend you bone up a bit... our commenters are significantly better informed and intelligent than you may be used to on, e.g., DK and his Mighty Diarists, DU, Juan Cole, or Pandagon.

Post a comment

Thanks for hissing in,
.
Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)

(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)

Powerhouses

Milblogs

Bear Flag League

The Bear Flag League blogroll will resume when BFL switches from BlogRolling to some other link-management site that does not trigger "malware" security alerts. We apologize for the inconvenience, but, well, you know.